The New Trend In Hollywood?

[Delorean90 42]

Same here. When I see a digitally-shot movie that looks like one of the first three Indiana Jones films, or Mr. Holland's Opus, or Star Trek, or a Nolan/Fister collaboration...that could sway me. So far, nope. Not saying there isn't good-looking digital, just that, from what I've seen, it hasn't gotten to the point of being able to do film without film.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

Think about how many movies you've watched since Jurassic Park with entire visual effects shots that are digital. I bet there's a quite a few shots that were mostly if not all digital that you accepted as filmed.

Anyways, I wish I could find an old article about how the advent of faster film destroyed the "beautiful" day-for-night scenes in movies.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

well, I can on my crappy 42 inch plasma from best buy

Yeah, I've seen those TVs in the stores that look like they have their video frequency cranked up to maximum. It looks like it's on fast forward.

[mrbellamy 6,287]

The wonders of having pristine digital quality and Spock's "it's easier to destroy than to create" is that digital can simulate the film looks easily. So no worries. You don't need film to look like film.

Reminds me of something I saw Roger Deakins post on his board once:

A digital camera does not light the shot any more than it can tell you where to put the camera or how to frame the image. And the idea that a shot can be 'fixed' in post is absurd.

Now, it is possible to do a lot in CG, almost anything, if you have the time and money. The image can be completely replaced and formed anew just as if it were motion capture material for an animated film. But this is all quite different from supposing that the Red Camera or the Alexa can shoot the film for you. Perhaps I am old fashioned but I still believe that shooting a film which resonates with the viewer requires a human component!

Greg Toland was a master at manipulation of the image using glass shots, split screen etc. etc. but imagine what he might have done with digital tools! The question whether digital is 'better' than film is not of primary importance and, besides that, I believe it to have been answered. What is important now is to discuss how these new tools can be used to make more interesting and visually stimulating 'films'.

As to film's 'unique look'. I believe that to be bogus too. I am certain that it is entirely possible to manipulate an image captured by the Alexa that would pass as one taken from a film negative. All that is required is some slight defocusing, a constriction of the colour space and the addition of digital grain. By suggesting that the 'unique look' of film owes more to the properties of film emulsion than to the cinematographers who created the imagery does a great disservice.

Also, this seems appropriate:

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

The wonders of having pristine digital quality and Spock's "it's easier to destroy than to create" is that digital can simulate the film looks easily. So no worries. You don't need film to look like film.

Reminds me of something I saw Roger Deakins post on his board once:

A digital camera does not light the shot any more than it can tell you where to put the camera or how to frame the image. And the idea that a shot can be 'fixed' in post is absurd.

Now, it is possible to do a lot in CG, almost anything, if you have the time and money. The image can be completely replaced and formed anew just as if it were motion capture material for an animated film. But this is all quite different from supposing that the Red Camera or the Alexa can shoot the film for you. Perhaps I am old fashioned but I still believe that shooting a film which resonates with the viewer requires a human component!

Greg Toland was a master at manipulation of the image using glass shots, split screen etc. etc. but imagine what he might have done with digital tools! The question whether digital is 'better' than film is not of primary importance and, besides that, I believe it to have been answered. What is important now is to discuss how these new tools can be used to make more interesting and visually stimulating 'films'.

As to film's 'unique look'. I believe that to be bogus too. I am certain that it is entirely possible to manipulate an image captured by the Alexa that would pass as one taken from a film negative. All that is required is some slight defocusing, a constriction of the colour space and the addition of digital grain. By suggesting that the 'unique look' of film owes more to the properties of film emulsion than to the cinematographers who created the imagery does a great disservice.

Spoken by a man who knows this stuff a helluva lot better than I.

[Delorean90 42]

Think about how many movies you've watched since Jurassic Park with entire visual effects shots that are digital. I bet there's a quite a few shots that were mostly if not all digital that you accepted as filmed.

Anyways, I wish I could find an old article about how the advent of faster film destroyed the "beautiful" day-for-night scenes in movies.

Mark, I know exactly what you're talking about, and before I knew that it was a feature that could be turned on or off, it made me very leery of HD televisions.

With regards to the Deakins quote, I am fully prepared to have my mouth shut by Deakins's upcoming digital work, but I'm a bit dubious on the bit about the inherent look of film being bogus and something easily imitable by digital shooting--at least on the Alexa. He almost seems to miss the argument being made, as though people are upholding film in and of itself as the maker of the images they love, which isn't the case. I'm in full agreement that the masterful cinematographer is indeed responsible for the great images we've enjoyed over the years, but I haven't seen evidence that digital is the right tool for even a great cinematographer to produce the kinds of images that I look for in film. I feel it's best to use film and digital to their respective strengths.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

And what is the strength of film? And how will we not be able to achieve it by degrading a superior source?

It make no sense sir! No sense!

Think of it this way, if my car can go 24 miles per hour max, then that's the fastest I can ever go in it. If however I buy a car that does 60 MPH max, I can still drive at 24 MPH if I want to.

[Wojo 2,453]

As long as the price of a movie ticket, or DVD rental or purchase doesn't double with this doubling of film frames per second, I don't care how many frames they cram into each second. I'm blasé to the whole thing. Just give me good movies worth seeing again and again.

Think of it this way, if my car can go 24 miles per hour max, then that's the fastest I can ever go in it.

I...CAN'T...DRIVE...FIFTY-FIVE!!!

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

So strangely enough if you double the number of frames you have to render on a render farm, it takes 15-20% longer rather than 200%. So I don't think film costs will double or anything. That side shouldn't really affect DVD costs.

Cinemas being forced to upgrade their archaic technology on the other hand....

[Marian Schedenig 8,200]

Actually I should apologize to Marian.

There are several Goldsmith scores that have subpar performances by the orchestras that are still good. And of course there's Shawn Murphy......

But they still suffer from it, and we'd jump at a chance to get better versions. The music itself isn't lessened by these factors, but the end result, and therefore our enjoyment, is. Same with lesser film technology, and 24fps is clearly less good than higher frame rates (anyone arguing that a higher frame rate looks "fake" is arguing on the same level as people 60 years ago when they said realistic drama couldn't be done in colour because it didn't look serious and realistic enough).

In any case, I can't wait to see a movie where I can actually focus on individual objects in medium speed pans.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

And not getting motion sick in the process.

[Quintus 5,399]

Actually, I'm fully looking forward to the 100% bullshit (online) stories of how 48fps movies gave people nose bleeds, chronic nausea and eyeball cancer.

[Delorean90 42]

And what is the strength of film?

The richness of its texture. I might even go so far as to say its (capacity for) warmth. Digital footage has generally looked more sterile to me.

And how will we not be able to achieve it by degrading a superior source?

By what criteria are we considering the digital a superior source? In what way is the aesthetic of film a degradation of that? I have yet to see anything that proves to me that they don't simply offer two different realms of visual style.

Think of it this way, if my car can go 24 miles per hour max, then that's the fastest I can ever go in it. If however I buy a car that does 60 MPH max, I can still drive at 24 MPH if I want to.

And I've already said I'm fine with directors having the option of film or digital, 24 or 48/60. It's this notion that these developments must be utterly replacing their still-fine, still-legitimate predecessors that bothers me.

I humbly request two things: an example of a digital movie that perfectly emulates a rich (lush?) film texture, and an example of the supposed horrors of 24 fps.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

The richness of its texture. I might even go so far as to say its (capacity for) warmth. Digital footage has generally looked more sterile to me.

This can be duplicated on digital with post-processing. It's been done for the last 20 years of CGI.

By what criteria are we considering the digital a superior source? In what way is the aesthetic of film a degradation of that? I have yet to see anything that proves to me that they don't simply offer two different realms of visual style.

Superior in that anything you can do with film can be replicated on digital non-destructively. Image quality (including dynamic range, color reproduction, noise) is better, it is more extensible, it is superior for archival purposes, it is easier to edit/more malleable in general.

They're not different visual styles. Digital is raw. Film is baked. Digital can go in any direction. That's why you can make digital look like film. But more on that in the next bit.

I humbly request two things: an example of a digital movie that perfectly emulates a rich (lush?) film texture

Slumdog Millionaire, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Black Swan, Inception...

and an example of the supposed horrors of 24 fps.

[Red 75]

I humbly request two things: an example of a digital movie that perfectly emulates a rich (lush?) film texture

Slumdog Millionaire, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Black Swan, Inception...

Inception was shot on film. Nolan's a bit of a traditionalist, he doesn't do digital.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

There's actually a few scenes in Inception shot digitally. My challenge to you is to differentiate them from those shot on 35mm and 65mm as well as any complete computer generated shots.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Good call on Benjamin Button, I was going to say that myself. Take a look at all of Fincher's films really.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,544]

James Cameron should stop talking.